Order! Before the business of the House commences, I request the hon the Chairman of Committees to take the Chair in order to afford me an opportunity to make a personal explanation from the floor of the House.

Order! I call upon the hon the Acting Speaker to speak.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity you are affording me to make a personal explanation to the House. Before I do so, I want to say that it is quite an experience for me to be standing here, speaking from the floor of the House for the first time in three and a half years.

Sir, as it behoves a member of Parliament, I compiled a four page document in which I reported to some of my voters on matters concerning my constituency, politics and Parliament. I was bona fide under the impression that it was part of the conditions of service of a member of Parliament for him to be able to send such a letter to his voters post-free.

During the course of Wednesday, 10 February 1988, it came to my attention, although it is not clear, that such actions might not be in accordance with the conditions of service of a member of Parliament. In order therefore to eliminate any possible suggestion of an irregularity or misunderstanding, I immediately took steps to make certain payments in connection with postage. Because I did not want to make a mistake as regards the relevant amount, I paid in an amount which was larger than any amount which in my opinion I could possibly have owed in postage. The relevant payment was, as advised, made before I was even aware that the hon member for Soutpansberg intended giving notice of motion in this connection.

I trust that the House will accept my explanation in this connection.

Mr Speaker, before the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon, I had put the following points, viz that the PFP were very upset because so little notice was being taken of them, and were not interested in the fight between the Official Opposition and this side of the House. Secondly, they felt that everything that was unacceptable in South Africa had taken place under the reign of the NP during the past 40 years. The state of emergency, foreign sanctions, authoritarianism, no peace, attacks on human rights— everything was the fault of the NP Government. I should like to tell the hon the leader of the PFP and especially the hon member for Houghton that after 40 years the NP is still alive and kicking, and we are ready for the next 40 years. [Interjections.]

I think there are some of us in this House who intend to pass that milestone in 40 years’ time. [Interjections.] The NP will be here, because the initiatives for orderly progress and change are in our hands. Thinking on this side remains fresh and future-orientated. We shall not leave South Africa in the lurch; this party provides security and protection. That tradition will certainly be continued by the next generation of politicians who will sit on this side of the House, because we do not collaborate with people from outside who want to force South Africa into awkward situations.

We do not like sanctions, because sanctions are an atrocity thought up by a number of radical malefactors who were born here and exported to foreign countries.

The NP has really become a national party which is supported by thousands of people today who are not Afrikaners. Millions of sensible and reasonable non-Whites have also pinned their hopes on this party. As long as this party tries to channel the reasonable aspirations of other groups in the correct way, without domination, it will remain in power. We know that there will be storms. Opposition parties must simply not play into the hands of the country’s enemies, for if they do, the electorate will deal with them thoroughly.

†We understand the obvious discomfort of the PFP in not being the centre of attraction. Their pessimistic outlook stems from their inability to influence political thinking among the White people of South Africa. Lack of election fortunes and success has made them angry, grumpy and rebellious. If one talks on behalf of the radicals, then the moderates will reject one. If you sleep with the dogs, you must not complain about fleas. [Interjections.]

One anti-Government newspaper referred to their turbo-charged campaign last year as one that had blown a gasket. A wise political owl, Alan Paton, told them in December last year that they had no future as an alternative government. He also had some good news for them, however, namely that the independent movements had no hope either. Their competitors would go down with them. They would not lose their honour alone; others would share that with them.

A party can lose members in an election or in some sort of a calamity but the PFP is losing them in another fashion—they just go. Why this particular situation? Because fundamentally political support and change in South Africa are determined to an overwhelming extent by just two important factors. They are that South Africans, I believe, will not reverse a policy which provides for economic co-operation and interdependence. That also applies to the Official Opposition. Furthermore, the electorate will not accept anything that smells of majority rule which offers no protection for minorities.

What about power-sharing?

I should like to refer to an article written by the hon member for Yeoville today. We told the hon member that we would be discussing this today but I believe that, unfortunately, he cannot be here this afternoon. Nevertheless, I should like to deal with the issue.

The hon member for Yeoville wrote this article on 31 January. I must say that when the hon member spoke in this debate members on this side had a deep appreciation for his very positive approach. He followed the lead given by the editor of the Sunday Times last Sunday, viz that “President Botha’s speech should receive unqualified praise”. That hon member has always impressed us with his very patriotic and sensible attitude towards defence, security and law and order.

As I say, it did not bring him much praise and support from within his own ranks because the hon member sounded too much like a Nationalist. In fact, his stand on issues like security caused him to relinquish his post as chairman of the Defence Study Group. With the exception of being a member of Parliament, he now virtually holds no position within his party ranks. Either he isolated himself or he has been deliberately isolated by his colleagues. That hon member travels a very lonely road. Perhaps this is of his own choosing—rather travel without political friends and colleagues than compromise one’s patriotic and solid South African outlook on national affairs.

I want to refer to the hon member’s article. I had a very close look at it. He started off by saying he had been asked to write on what had happened to the PFP and why it had happened and went on to say they had made a mistake by electing Dr Van Zyl Slabbert as their leader. We do not disagree with the hon member there but he then said, and I quote:

The party recalled its previous leader and he chose to surround himself …

*The hon member who wrote the article said Dr Van Zyl Slabbert had surrounded himself with certain people who were to help him to change the whole leadership. I quote:

Read on.

I shall read the hon member everything the hon member for Yeoville said.

†He went on to say:

*He then referred to the hon member for Greytown who had raised his arm in the Amandla salute during the election. That did that party a great deal of harm. He went on:

Then the hon member once again began to look for reasons, and I quote:

That was the hon member for Houghton.

The hon member for Yeoville continued his criticism by saying:

The hon member went on to say the following:

No greater accusation has been made against a political party which aspires to become the Official Opposition in South Africa. Not only is their public image negative, but they are losing their supporters because they are no longer doing what their voters want them to do.

The hon member continued as follows:

I now want to put a very important question to the hon the leader of the PFP. In the first place, can he keep the hon member for Yeoville in his political party when the hon member has made all these accusations against the PFP, the leaders of that party and the hon member for Sea Point himself? I want to put a second question to the hon member for Yeoville: Can he remain in that political party in the circumstances he was talking about?

As long as he does not become National! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville said a few more things. Hon members must remember that the hon member for Sea Point is trying to create certain political alliances in South Africa. There has been mention of “certain alliances”. The hon member for Yeoville said:

If that is the position, I ask the hon member for Sea Point how he can retain in his party an hon member who has stated these standpoints about his political party. I also ask the hon member for Yeoville if he can find it in his heart to remain in the PFP in such circumstances, while he knows that that political party is not only out of touch with the people that supported it, but is also harming the country by its conduct, and is harming the country by adopting this kind of attitude in South Africa. If the PFP wants any status in this Parliament and among the public, therefore, it will either have to listen to the advice of the hon member for Yeoville, or expel him from the party. Then we shall really see what the attitude of the PFP in South Africa is.

To tell us and the voters that there has been no progress is absolute nonsense. They say we have a poor track record. They say: “There is a maldistribution of wealth between Black and White,” but what is the real state of affairs? The upward trend among Blacks has never been as visible as in their wage packets. In 1970 Blacks earned R1 751 million, or 25,5% of the country’s total wage package of more than R6 865 million.

By 1984 it had grown to 32% of a total of R53 325 million. That represents an increase of more than 1 000% in 14 years. The hon gentleman and his benchmate tell us, however, that no progress is being made and that there is “maldistribution of wealth between Black and White”.

In 1970 Blacks had 23% of the available income in South Africa, including that in the national states. By 1985 it had grown to 31,8%. Is that not an improvement?

†Surveys by the Bureau of Market Research at UNISA of Black households in Pretoria in 1985 show an average per capita income of R1 500 per year and income per family or household of more than R9 000 per annum. In real terms this represents 18% more than in 1980.

*The Black businessman’s share in the market has increased from 1% in 1977 to more than 10% today. The SBDC has assisted approximately 8 000 small business enterprises, and many of these people are Blacks. At least 90 000 new employment opportunities must have been created in this way.

†We are not claiming to have done everything. That time will never come. However, instead of lauding our efforts—South Africa’s efforts—we are being denigrated by our own people in South Africa. We are being denigrated in the eyes of the outside world and in the eyes of our local Blacks too. The hon members of the PFP will have to take a good look at the strategy they have followed for the past 30 years or so and ask themselves whether they should not change their strategy for the benefit of South Africa as a whole.

*I am confident that the NP will continue to make South Africa and all its people economically sound and even stronger. The Government simply does not believe in keeping Blacks out of our industrial complexes. In fact, if there were to be a kind of faintness among the Blacks who work in the urban and rural areas tomorrow, every White would be a lifesaver who would apply artificial respiration. How can a farm or a factory in South Africa work with faint labourers? The Official Opposition must remember that, and that is why people will not believe what they say.

Mr Chairman, before the hon member became a Deputy Minister he was normally used as the first speaker after the Leader of the Official Opposition to kick up dust.

Now he is a Deputy Minister and is used as almost the last speaker before the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition replies to kick up dust yet again. He should have told us of the losses of millions of rands the SATS have suffered. That is a more relevant factor.

*The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to a newspaper report in which the hon member for Yeoville made his political analyses. It was quite apparent from the report that the hon member for Yeoville had a completely different approach to politics to, for example, those of us in the National Democratic Movement. [Interjections.]

Order!

During the past few years the political scene has changed in the sense that at the moment there are two obvious polarities in the macro-political scene. On the one hand we have the system in which we find ourselves at the moment with all its related systems, while on the other we have the extra-parhamentary political sphere, the freedom struggle, or whatever one wants to call it.

In the two camps the discussions within the groups are heated. In the system in which we find ourselves, the groups are relying to an increasing extent on a safe system and there is increasing suppression as a result of opposition from outside.

In the extra-parliamentary circle the talk is becoming increasingly radical, and socialism is a theme which is being discussed to an increasing extent. What is more, these two groups are moving further apart; they are polarising. This means that the possibility that the two groups will find common ground at some stage or another is diminishing. The gap between the two systems is growing wider. In the first place the NP is of the opinion that a security approach can resolve our situation.

Outside—in the extra-parliamentary circles—until recently the people were still of the opinion that a confrontation strategy would also improve their position. If it is true that the two groups are moving further apart as a result of polarisation, it seems to us that a dangerous stage can be reached where groups of Whites and Blacks, socialists and capitalists and so on, will stand in opposition to one another. This can lead to chaos and bloodshed. How can one prevent this or contribute towards the polarisation decreasing or even contribute towards breaking down the dividing line which exists between the system and the extraparliamentary political sphere so that we can find common ground as South Africans? We will then not be concerned about whether a person is inside the system or involved in extra-parliamentary politics. The NDM will in fact ignore the dividing lines which have been drawn between parliamentary politics and extra-parliamentary politics for historic or political reasons. We are going to work with other South Africans—no matter where they come from—to create a joint future, based on a democratic order, for ourselves and our children.

In this system we are striving for, we will give recognition to the interests which exist in South Africa as regards language, culture and nationalism. All these matters must receive recognition, but at the same time these groups which exist cannot serve as building blocks for a constitutional set-up. We must strive for free association. We are convinced that the vast majority of South Africans are seeking a democratic dispensation in which there are equal rights for everyone. These people who are seeking such a dispensation include the people who are classified as revolutionaries and part of the rebellion. As long as we have a dispensation in South Africa in which a minority is intent on dominating a majority, no matter how sophisticated it is, and while equal rights do not exist, there will be no security for either Whites or Blacks. Long-term security is only possible if it is based on equal rights in a democratic dispensation in which the differences are recognised. However, at the same time people must accept each other and must be accommodated in such a system. The National Democratic Party…

Party?

… will function in this field. The debate will increasingly become a central debate in White politics—as it has existed thus far—and in politics in general. We are going to become a relevant and important part of the debate in the total political set-up because we have a long-term objective which must be realised by all South Africans.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central criticised the NP about its approach to security after what happened yesterday. They cannot be living in the same country as we! This Government says there must be security, and until such time as this has been achieved, we cannot come to a proper agreement. The more I listen to the hon member for Durban Central and the other hon members of the New Movement, the more I feel convinced that the political correspondent of Die Vaderland was right when he said that the NDM wanted to play rugby on a rugby field according to the rules of table tennis.

†A number of hon members of the opposition and also an hon member of the NDM, the hon member for Greytown, referred to the unrest situation in Pietermaritzburg. The hon member for Greytown criticised the police on their actions in that situation. I believe it is important that this matter be placed in the right perspective in this highest legislative body in our country.

The first aspect that should be mentioned is the fact that this occurs in a very wide area comprising approximately 400 square kilometres. It is almost inaccessible and the existing roads are in a bad state, especially after the floods. It is therefore very difficult for the police to patrol the area effectively. Many of these murders also take place at night and the police hear about them only the next day.

The main unrest area is situated in KwaZulu territory. It is a fact that there is certainly a UDF/Inkatha struggle, but the role of faction fighting should not be underestimated. Running with a spear and a knobkierie has been a tradition since time immemorial and a part of the custom and tradition of the young Zulu. The fact that bodies have been found with 40 stab wounds indicates that this is also a problem in the area.

It is an oversimplification to think that this is only a fight between the UDF and Inkatha. For a very long time, and for historical reasons, there have been also historical divisions between the Zulu in Southern Natal and the Zulu in Northern Natal. There is also developing among the average Zulu a strong feeling against corruption in the Inkatha-dominated KwaZulu administration. There is also a strong feeling against the chieftainship which is not allowing development by making land available for private ownership. As a result of this, I would submit that the struggle is rather between the intimidating factions of the UDF and Inkatha who are trying to intimidate 85% of the population who are not interested in either of these two factions.

Retribution and revenge play a role, as well as unemployment and the criminal element. It is a very complicated situation which cannot be solved overnight. However, it will be solved by a larger police presence and also by bringing the criminals to trial.

Hon members of this House should appreciate the difficulties and they should support the police in their activities. They should not undermine the authority of the police. That is I am sad to say what certain hon members of the PFP are doing. By calling for a judicial commission, by speaking against the use of special constables and by playing off the police against the Defence Force they are undermining the authority of those who have to enforce law and order.

The hon member for Greytown and the hon member for Pinetown of the PFP make accusations against the police, but only from the side of the UDF …

Not one!

… as if the UDF did not play a very important role in this regard.

You are not telling the truth!

The hon member for Greytown is also closely associated with the UDF. This organisation only a few years ago tried blatantly to make this country ungovernable. Where previously they asked for the police and the army to move out of the townships, they are now asking for the army to move in.

It would not be in the interests of the already tainted image of the PFP to be associated with the UDF. It is a complicated situation, and if they have difficulty with police actions, they should take that up with the hon the Minister beforehand. If there are no actions, then they can take it up here and in public. It is not in the interests of bringing back peace and calm to that area to drag this issue into the political arena. I would ask them to play a more responsible role.

*Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He accused this Government of sacrificing the self-determination of the Afrikaner, of having chosen the road of domination and of being a sell-out Government. He was very effective in making these charges, but when he had to produce proof, he fell quite flat. Among other things, we heard about some beer advertisement on TV. I want to give him the assurance that this Government had nothing to do with that advertisement. I am going to refute these allegations by means of recent and undeniable facts, and not mere allegations. I am going to refer to the recent attitude adopted by the NP in Natal and its leader to the KwaNatal-Indaba proposals. One has to believe in fairy tales or be a member of the PFP or the Independent Movement not to realise that these proposals will mean the irreversible domination of the minority groups by the majority groups and the abolition of separate areas for the minority groups while the areas of the majority group will continue to be reserved for that group. The NP has taken a very strong stand against this. This is certainly not the conduct of a party of sell-outs.

In spite of the fact that it led to a break with the Labour Party, the Government has taken a strong stand in favour of separate areas and a separate community life, which the Group Areas Act provides for, but it has said that adjustments may be made in order to provide for certain needs. This is certainly not the attitude of the Government which is ready to surrender.

I should also like to refer to the action recently taken by the Government with regard to the KwaNatal Joint Executive Authority. There is a great need for a joint authority, but it is based on consensus and on the understanding that each body is to retain its own executive powers. These bodies must each take a separate decision as to which matters may be decided jointly. There is no question whatsoever of domination. This is certainly not the attitude of a government that is intent on selling out.

These things prove not only that this Government is not intent on selling out, but also that the Government wishes to create the structures without which we shall not be able to live in peace and prosperity.

The irony of the matter is that if the CP with its policy of a Coloured homeland consisting of 600 pieces, an Indian homeland and a “Boerestaat” were to come into power, it would need more co-operative bodies of this kind than this Government does. If they were to come into power, they would have to spend more money on this type of thing, because they would have more independent entities which would cost money and they would have to spend more on defence because they would have more extensive borders.

Since the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not indicate the true criterion for judging the Government I should like to do so this afternoon. That criterion should obviously be whether the Government is implementing a policy which takes account of the realities of modern-day Africa. It is 28 years ago this month that Premier Harold MacMillan made his well-known “Winds of Change” speech. He was right, because a change was in fact taking place, but he was also wrong, because the winds he spoke about were actually a hurricane which simply swept away all stability.

The realities of Africa and of Southern Africa has been made very clear to us of late, and that is that democracy according to the Western model, and loyal opposition, are alien to Africa. We have also seen that standards collapse when Western and First World influences have disappeared, and that there is no room in Africa for the weak. The important question is whether it is possible under these circumstances to withdraw comfortably and selfishly into our own “Boerestaat” or White state without reflecting that these circumstances are going to overwhelm us. It is not possible. If we withdraw into our shell like a tortoise, like that animal we shall end up in a pot of boiling water from which there will be no escape.

We have prosperity in South Africa and in Africa, and insofar as it is humanly possible, we shall preserve it, because the Government attaches great importance to self-determination, identity and community life, and it also attaches great importance to power-sharing where this cannot be avoided, to co-operation and to the rendering of assistance, which is our duty. This is the only solution to our problems.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North must not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his speech, except to say that he would seem to have misrepresented the remarks of my colleague, the hon member for Pinetown, regarding the situation in Pietermaritzburg.

I want to comment on the reference to the PFP by the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs. If he wants to exploit possible dissension in the PFP he is welcome to do so. However, I recommend that he concentrate instead on the deep-rooted ideological and other differences existing within the NP.

In the limited time at my disposal I should like to discuss two matters. One is the opening address of the hon the State President and the other is this debate, seeing that we have now reached the end of this week’s political debate.

As regards the opening address of the hon the State President, I want to say that I am not speaking as an economist, but as a person who obviously has a tremendous interest in privatisation. I hope we will be able to give more attention to this matter than is really possible in this debate. The contributions of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, the hon Leader of the PFP—the hon member of Sea Point—the hon member for Yeoville and others did touch on this matter, but essentially we have not penetrated to the core of the problems.

I associate myself with the general view adopted here by the hon member for Sea Point, namely that he agreed with the general guideline laid down by the hon the State President. However, he issued a warning that these matters would only bear fruit if they could take place within the framework of a policy of political and social reform.

Like the hon member for Sea Point I welcome the general guideline laid down by the hon the State President, but it is a tragedy that this direction in respect of privatisation was not adopted at a stage when South Africa had a reasonably free flow of capital from overseas countries. Owing to sanctions and disinvestment I foresee that there is going to be tremendous competition between the financial demands which privatisation is going to make on the one hand and demands which disinvestment is going to make on our companies and our capital resources on the other to take over those companies which are still going to withdraw from South Africa—there is every indication that there are going to be more. In addition there are the capital and other demands which are still going to be made in respect of finding alternative markets and ways and means of contending with the sanctions campaign.

As far as privatisation is concerned I want to say that I think it would be foolish to deny the pressure it is going to place on our capital and revenue resources from a socio-economic point of view. That pressure is going to increase in view of the unavoidable increase in the population in the next decade and the necessity to provide essential services to the non-White population groups in particular. In this connection I am thinking of Black housing, education and so on.

The question I therefore want to put—I am asking myself this question—is how we can reconcile this privatisation with the capital and current expenditure which the implementation of that policy will give rise to, together with the take-over of foreign companies by South Africans, together with sustained economic growth and the creation of the necessary employment opportunities, together with the increase in the level of the provision of services, particularly as regards the legitimate demands and aspirations of the underprivileged sections of our population, and together with the combating of inflation. These are the challenges facing us.

Several things are clear to me. If we want to succeed with that policy and if we want to bring about that reconciliation, we cannot continue with the political policy we are now adopting. We cannot continue with the costs involved in the duplication and triplication caused by the tricameral Parliament and the creation of separate departments and administrations in terms of the concept of own affairs. We can forget about that.

When we talk about deregulation as part of the Government’s policy, I want to say that the first requirement for deregulation must be that we must lift the additional restrictions on the acquisition and ownership of land. It is not possible to talk about deregulation and then continue to maintain the Group Areas Act and the other restrictions which exist in respect of land tenure in South Africa. Purely from an economic point of view we shall have to bring land back into the free market in South Africa as soon as possible. We cannot continue to have this important asset subject to all the restrictions which exist in our legislation today. In addition I want to say that in general this will have to go hand in hand with a policy of political and social reform. That is all I want to say with regard to the opening address of the hon the State President.

I now want to get back to the no-confidence debate which was held this week. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Kuruman and say that in all the years I have been in Parliament, I have never experienced such a meaningless, unconstructive and for me personally disgusting no-confidence debate. I want to express my disappointment and deep displeasure regarding the debating which took place in this Chamber this week. I frequently wondered whether I was sitting here in the highest Chamber in the country, the venerable House of Assembly with its traditions from the past, or whether I was at Hyde Park Comer in London. That is no reflection on the Chair.

It is a reflection on Hyde Park Corner! [Interjections.]

Yes, I think the hon member for Houghton is correct. I cannot imagine that we have ever had a no-confidence debate in this House in which the debate was so totally dominated by emotional considerations. It was totally dominated by demagoguery and there was a total absence of rational thought and of calm and reasonable debating.

It is easy to be a demagogue; I can also be one if I wish. However, what do we achieve by acting like that? The debating this week was characterised by demagoguery. It was as if we were trying to address the people outside and not as if we were trying to debate the important problems of our country with one another here. What we experienced here was an unsavoury dispute between the CP and the NP, during which the forthcoming by-elections apparently played a dominant role. [Interjections.]

The CP accused the NP of the following things: Firstly the NP has deviated from the principles of Afrikaner Nationalism and from the principles of the right of Afrikaners and Whites to self-determination; secondly the NP has deviated from the Verwoerdian policy of racial segregation; thirdly the NP’s policy of so-called power-sharing is inexorably going to lead to Black domination; and fourthly the NP is involved in an irresponsible policy of colour integration which is threatening the community life and survival of the Whites. These are the four fundamental accusations being levelled at the NP by the CP.

It is quite clear to me that the CP is of the opinion that the two factors which brought the NP into power and kept it there can be used by the CP in the same way. Those two principles are an appeal to and the use of Afrikaner Nationalism, and the exploitation of the colour and racial feelings inherent in our society for generations. The NP came to power and remained in power by using those two things, namely Afrikaner Nationalism and the exploitation of colour prejudice.

The impression I gain is that the CP feels that because that recipe worked for the NP and brought them to power—I do not have the time now to go back in history, but I could if I wanted to; since the thirties and prior to that—it would also work for them. It is quite clear that this is precisely what they did this week. I want to say at once that there were members of the NP who were prepared to admit that mistakes had been made along the way, and I respected them for this. I also respect them for the fact that they have in certain respects moved away from their policy of the past 40 years.

What did the CP offer as an alternative? The only alternative it offered was the so-called partition policy. Let us dwell for a moment on the concept of partition. As I have said before in this House, the concept of partition can only be used if it implies an agreement between different groups on how the land and the territory is going to be divided. In that case one can use the term “partition”. However, if that agreement does not exist, one cannot use the term “partition”, because then it is nothing but the unilateral shunting of people to a part of a territory which is unilaterally decided on by whomever has the power to do so.

I have repeatedly told the story here, if I remember it correctly, of the late President Kruger. When two brothers could not agree on how the farm which their father was going to leave them should be divided, he said to the elder son: “You divide the farm”, and to the younger: “You choose”. If the CP says that it is prepared to apply its partition policy in this way, namely that it will say to the other people in our country: “Very well, we will lay down the boundaries and you can choose”, then I will believe that they are serious, but otherwise not. The policy of partition cannot succeed in South Africa. There were several speakers, on this side and on the NP side, such as the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, the hon member for Innesdal and the hon member for Bellville, who tried to indicate on rational grounds that the policy of partition could not succeed. However, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that reasonable and rational considerations make no impression on the CP. They make not an iota of difference. Of I consider our country’s population and if I really believe that we cannot convince our own people, Afrikaners and other people, White and Black, by means of rational considerations as to what is good and right for the country, I really see no future for our country.

I also want to say—I shall come to the NP in a moment—that the CP owes this House and the public an explanation in regard to several matters. The first of these is the practical implications of its so-called policy of partition. The second is the impossibility of maintaining exclusive Afrikaner sovereignty and right to self-determination in our situation. The third is the party’s veiled threats regarding the use of “other” ways and means if they cannot get their way by constitutional means—and the hon the Minister of National Education was quite correct in this regard. The fourth matter is their identification and association with the AWB which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has essentially rejected the Parliamentary democratic system. I am sorry I do not have the time to refer to Dr Malan, because I was involved in Dr Malan’s decision to reject the Ossewabrandwag owing to the campaigns which they waged. That was two weeks before his meeting at Stellenbosch at which the theme was: “Kom ek om, so kom ek om”. Unfortunately I do not have the time to tell that story here. The fifth matter is the CP’s apparent inability to gain the support and co-operation of the other groups in our society for the implementation of their policy. The sixth matter is the emphasis they place on race and colour and their racist approach, even if they deny it. The final matter is the heightening of conflict which these factors must give rise to. What is the CP doing about this?

Then I want to ask what the NP’s reaction is to these accusations by the CP. In their first place the reaction was a denial that the NP had moved away from Afrikaner Nationalism. In the second place it a denied that the NP policy was heading towards integration. In the third place it denied that the NP was moving away from the policy of the right to self-determination and separate development and that in the implementation of the own affairs concept a guarantee therefore existed of the right to self-determination of each group with regard to its own affairs …

That is a half-truth!

… and fourthly that the Government was in favour of power-sharing in respect of general affairs but they denied that this power-sharing would lead to Black domination.

In this debate the NP therefore emerged as a party of denial, as a negative party, that could only say: “That is not so, that is not so; we do not believe it; that is not correct”. It is a party of negative denial. [Interjections.] I am still waiting for the NP to put forward a vision for the future.

Ask the voters when they decide. Look what your party looks like.

Sir, I am speaking in this debate and I do not want hon members like the hon member for Turffontein to waste my time.

I am still waiting. In this debate the NP has emerged as a party which says that this that and the other is not true. I am still waiting for them to put forward a positive vision for our country and people. Let me take the beach issue as an example. What did the NP do about the statement by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs this morning? Because they were afraid that the CP would misuse what happened during that one week on the Durban beaches the NP ran away, they gave it a wide berth. Instead of having the courage to tell the people of South Africa that we could not continue to enforce a policy of beach apartheid, it gave the matter a wide berth because it feared that the CP would misuse the matter. [Interjections.]

We are therefore facing a situation in which we are dealing with two parties neither of which, as far as the future of the country is concerned, have a vision for the future of our country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it was very interesting to notice the trend among the PFP and also the NDM—that dissatisfaction was expressed about the tenor of the debate in this House. I can understand that, because when one has been used to getting attention for years, and is ignored by everyone all of a sudden, one must have something of a problem. Unfortunately that is the situation.

Will that save the country’s problems?

I shall come to the country’s problems in a moment.

I also found it interesting to listen to the hon member Prof Olivier who spoke about denials.

Let us talk about denials, just to oblige the hon members of the PFP and the NDM. Let us “address the problems of the country”, as they say. Let us see what we should do as far as the constitutional development of our country is concerned. The first problem that those two parties are not prepared to tackle is the question of accommodating either individual rights or group rights within the constitutional system. That is the basis which they are not really prepared to tackle. Both these parties …

Our policy is based on individual rights.

…denigrate it. No, I shall speak to you later, Jannie. Just keep quiet now. [Interjections.] Both parties insist that there are such things as individual rights and group rights, but they escape the real problem by invoking free association and proportional representation. That is the basis on which they circumvent that problem.

I do not want to say too much about the PFP. We all know their policy.

Let us rather take a look at the NDM. They tell me its leader was so pleased to find two people who wanted to join him that he called the movement the NDM—the New Dakar Movement. [Interjections.] That is what he did. Nevertheless I should like to have a discussion with the hon member for Randburg. I see their emblem contains four colours. It has quite a mixture of colours. Part of this circle contains the yellow of the CP. Then there is the red of the PFP and of certain other people, as well as the black and green of the ANC. I want to ask the hon member how we should feel? There is not even a smattering of blue in the emblem. [Interjections.] Really, Sir, the hon member has spanned all the parties in this country, but there is not even a smattering of blue for the NP. I do not think that is fair. [Interjections.]

The National Democratic Movement does not get to the crux of things either. They also refer to vague situations, to cultural groups and so on. Of course, I want to concede immediately that we are living in a world in which ethnicity is equated with racism and discrimination. That is true. It is also true that there was discrimination against ethnic groups in the past and that there is such discrimination even today. In addition it is true that ethnic groups are characterised in terms of their colour. That is also true. Nevertheless the world believes today that to get rid of racial discrimination one must deny ethnicity. During the course of my speech I shall try to indicate that that is not the solution to the problem. I shall try to indicate that the denial of nationalism or ethnicity is in fact the cause of racial and ethnic conflict. That is what causes this conflict.

†Mr Chairman, Donald Horowitz, professor at Duke University in the USA, in his book Ethnic Groups in Conflict says the following:

You see, Sir, if one tries to deny the existence of nationalism, ethnicity or whatever one prefers to call it, this is what one arrives at. It is also true, however, that ethnic conflict can only occur in multi-ethnic societies. It is also true that ethnic conflict is a world-wide phenomenon.

*It is also true, however, that there is a big difference between ethnic conflict in Europe and ethnic conflict in South Africa, as well as in Africa and certain parts of the East. In Europe the formation of peoples preceded the formation of nations. Ethnic boundaries therefore became national boundaries. In Africa this happened in only three cases and I am not including the TBVC countries of South Africa. It happened in Somalia, Swaziland and Lesotho. The rest of the states were founded by the colonial powers, without taking ethnic groups into account.

Time does not permit me to elaborate on the concept of ethnicity and ethnic groups, but I assume hon members are familiar with this concept. What is important to us in our constitutional reform, however, is that we should learn the lessons of Africa in terms of what we want to do in future. That is important to us. We must learn from Africa’s mistakes and successes.

The irony of the struggle for decolonialisation in Africa during the past few years is that the colonial struggle was conducted along colonial boundaries. That is the irony. The result was the semblance of African nationalism, which was not genuine. This semblance was strengthened by the decision of the Organisation for African Unity at their first meeting in Cairo in 1964 when they said colonial boundaries would be recognised. When we look at Africa it is also interesting to notice that respected political scientists, such as Rabuschka and Shepse, found that a pattern had been established in connection with independence in Africa. I should like to point this out very briefly, because time does not permit me to elaborate too much.

The first phase is a pre-independence ethnic co-operation. Ethnic groups co-operate to get rid of a common enemy—the colonial power. A common enemy is identified, therefore. Examples of this are Kenya, Nigeria and Zambia, where this happened between the Kikuyus and the Ibo’s. This is nothing but free association.

Secondly, there is a period of euphoria after reaching independence. Once one has got rid of the common enemy, the euphoria takes effect, and one finds a further merging of these respective ethnic groups into one or more political organisations. Usually it is only one organisation.

During the third phase, demands are made. We must remember that in this process the leaders of the so-called oppressed groups, in order to canvass support amongst their own people, promise them a land of milk and honey after independence.

This is an excellent lecture.

I shall come to the hon member in a moment, because partition is not the answer to the problem. Then reality emerges, because almost without exception economic retrogression takes place because the group of entrepreneurs is no longer in operation. Competition for employment opportunities increases as a result of reduced economic activity. There are fewer clients and people compete for positions in the Public Service and the defence force. All of this contributes to an increase in ethnicity.

The fourth stage is an opportunistic stage which arises because the Government does not comply with these demands. People find out that individual rights mean nothing and that the only way in which they can really negotiate anything for themselves is by means of group rights. The most obvious group is, of course, the ethnic group. Naturally it is the ethnic group—we need only look at Africa.

The next phase then emerges in which multi-ethnic parties change into ethnic parties. This happens in that particular stage.

The final stage identified by these two political scientists is the disintegration of the state. We find that a civil government which is dominated by a certain ethnic group is replaced by a military government which, in nine out of ten cases is dominated by a different ethnic group. This interaction takes place constantly.

The question we, the PFP and the Democratic Movement must consider is how we in South Africa with our politics can escape this problem. That is the question.

I am trying to indicate that competition and fear of domination are the basis of ethnicity. The denial of ethnicity does not lead to a reduced fear of domination and competition, but an increase in this fear. In our country we shall have to admit that the answer to scaling down conflict undoubtedly resides in the recognition of groups in this country. We cannot deny their existence. We on this side of the House will have to convince other groups in this country in future that the recognition of groups is not discrimination. We shall have to convince other peoples and groups that the denial of ethnicity will in fact lead to our getting ethnic domination in this country.

Mr Chairman, during this no-confidence debate, the Government and the CP attacked one another day in and day out about the AWB and its radical points of view, and whether or not the AWB was in favour of violent change was debated endlessly. It was a typically boring debate, in which the participants were intent on scoring points off one another, bearing in mind that the AWB’s possible use of violence is purely theoretical. There was a hypocritical indignation on the part of the Government about the theoretical possibility that the AWB could become violent.

†However, while members of this House were theorising about the AWB and its possible use of violence in the future, they showed no understanding of the fact that South Africa is already experiencing a virtual orgy of violence, a spiral of senseless killing. So regular are these killings that many people are just not shocked anymore. South Africans seem to have lost the ability to resolve their political differences by means of talking and reasoning, and they seem, increasingly, to go over to resolving their political differences by resorting to the use of violence against their opponents regardless of where they may stand politically.

Although it is true that there are many individuals and even organisations who also use violence maintain this afternoon that it is this Government and specifically the South African Police who are making no attempt to reduce the violence.

You are talking nonsense!

The hon the Minister will have to listen to me. Through their actions the Government and the police are actually causing this violence. [Interjections.] I say this for two reasons.

Firstly, by declaring a state of emergency and by ruthlessly oppressing all legitimate opposition the Government has virtually closed all channels which South Africa’s Black people can use to air their grievances. It is this fact which is causing more and more of the oppressed people to resort to the only other means at their disposal—as objectionable as it is to all of us—namely violence. [Interjections.]

Secondly, the Government is directly responsible for this violence by allowing its agents and more specifically the South African Police to use the most brutal and inhumane forms of violence and repression known. [Interjections.]

Order!

This Government, by allowing the beating and torturing of its opponents to continue …

Will you say that outside this House?

Order!

…is setting a disgusting example which is increasingly being followed by its opponents. [Interjections.]

Order! There is too much noise in this House. I cannot allow it. The hon member may proceed.

As a result of the clampdown on the Press in terms of the state of emergency the White electorate is blissfully unaware of the daily assaults and tortures that are being perpetrated in police cells around South Africa. I will give evidence of this here today by referring to specific cases.

Sir, the first case I want to refer to is that on the evening of 19 January, two young Black men, Sonwaba Madikane and Mandla Maigas, were returning home after a meeting of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s Idasa in Mowbray. They were stopped by police who wanted to know where they got the Idasa brochures which were in their possession. They were too scared to tell the police where they had got these brochures and were thereupon beaten with rifle butts and kicked. They were taken to the Nyanga police station where they were tortured for about four hours. A rucksack was put over their heads, little metal rings were attached to their little fingers and for four hours they were given electric shocks. At about 3 am these two young men were sent home without having been charged or even their names or addresses taken.

In the Sunday Tribune a week later the police issued a statement saying that after having interviewed the two young men, they were unable to show who had tortured them or where in the Nyanga police station they had been tortured; that these young men were lying and that my report therefore was a lie. I have investigated that case twice and on the public gallery of this Parliament today I have these two young men, Sonwaba Madikane and Mandla Maigas, should anybody be interested in determining what was done to them.

The second case is the one of John de Vos, an 18-year-old youth. One evening after having been arrested, a bag was put over his head and at a secret venue he was assaulted by various policemen for six hours. When he would not tell them what they wanted to know, he was undressed and both his hands and feet handcuffed. Two tables were brought into the room and he was made to sit on his haunches. A broomstick was stuck through his legs and arms and he was hung from this broom. The broomstick was hung over the two tables with him suspended in the middle. A wet cloth was wrapped around his little fingers, his wrists and his ankles. Electric wires were attached to all these areas and electric shock upon electric shock was sent through his body while they kept on asking him questions. His fingers, wrists and ankles were swollen and he had a terrible headache. He was prevented from seeing a doctor and the next day he was taken to Johannesburg for further interrogation. John de Vos, this detainee, is also present today on the public gallery.

These three young men were tortured and I cannot accept that any hon member on that side, if he knows it is true, would approve of it. I will never accept that.

Not one of us.

I will never accept that but then it is the duty of the Government to determine whether it is true. I have no doubt that it is.

Sir, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to refer to individuals on the public gallery?

Order! I have listened to the hon member for Claremont and it is not the convention in this House to refer to persons on the gallery. I would appreciate it if the hon member would abide by this. The hon member may proceed.

I will do so, Sir. These cases of torture are not exceptions to the rule, not in the least. The killing of detainees as used to happen in the old days, seems to have been replaced by torturing. The hon the Minister of Law and Order will have to take the responsibility for these actions and for not taking adequate steps to stop this orgy of violence.

*Sir, in the previous episode of the TV programme “Meneer die Speaker” attention was given to the strike by White mineworkers on the Rand in 1922—a strike which enjoyed the sympathetic support of Dr Malan and the National Party.

†During a debate in Parliament on this strike, and referring to the fact that the Prime Minister, General Smuts, had ordered his soldiers to bombard the strikers, killing a few of them, Dr Malan turned to General Smuts and accused him of having blood on his hands. In view of the fact that the hon the Minister of Law and Order seems to have no control over those members of the SAP who are torturing political opponents of the State, I want to say today that he has the blood of these detainees on his hands.

Disgraceful! [Interjections.]

That is precisely what General Smuts’ supporters said to Dr Malan: “Disgraceful!” Hon members must find out whether this is true. I am not interested in telling lies here. [Interjections.]

Why does this happen? Year after year we disclose particulars regarding people who have been maltreated in this way. Why does this not stop? The only reason it does not stop is because no steps are taken to prevent it.

Mr Chairman, it does not surprise me that the Progs sent the hon member for Claremont packing. This afternoon we saw why they did that. I can assure this House that the speech he made this afternoon was solely intended to harm South Africa. [Interjections.] The fact is that I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, often deal with those matters, because similar complaints and accusations are continually being made by our enemies abroad. I am in contact with my hon colleagues and their departments against whom accusations were made this afternoon. Throughout I have received only co-operation and understanding from the hon Ministers concerned, as well as a spontaneous readiness to intervene when there were real problems in regard to the way people had been treated. For example, I know that the hon the Minister of Defence and his department have already had troops arrested, prosecuted and punished. None of us tolerate cruelty. It is not a good thing for us that it occurs, but it is better for us to take action against it openly rather than have to deal with a system in which one never hears anything about it and nothing is ever done about it and one tries to conceal it. I would have preferred the hon member to have come to the Ministers concerned and submitted his complaints to them. I promise the hon member …

The case was reported … [Interjections.]

Hon members cannot talk now. I am talking.

I tell the hon member that hon Ministers give serious attention to matters of this nature, as they always do with these cases. I therefore suggest to the hon member that if he is suggesting that they do not do so, he is simply not telling the truth.

[Inaudible.]

As far as I am concerned, I must say I can see why the Progs let that hon member go. He has a split personality, and both personalities are radical Progs. [Interjections.]

†I should like to deal with the allegations made by the hon member for Berea, and, I believe, the hon member for Constantia, regarding the events in Bophuthatswana.

If ever I witnessed a frivolous demonstration of the PFP’s petulance, it was when these two hon gentlemen made those statements yesterday. Instead of endeavouring to obtain the facts and doing a little research, they simply chose to make allegations in this House which were baseless and unsubstantiated. They are angry with themselves.

I can summarise the gravamen of the charges as follows: Firstly, the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the Minister of Law and Order and I should not have gone to Mmabatho. The hon member did not like it. He ridiculed it. Secondly, he referred to the four independent states, the states which received their independence from South Africa, namely Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, as failures and catastrophies, and used other words to that effect. I gained the impression that he was disappointed that the coup had not succeeded. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

He also quoted something I was supposed to have said on the radio, to the effect that this had placed Bophuthatswana on the map.

That they would be better known.

I will deal with that. I am just summarising the charges.

He also made great play of the case of Mr Kalmanovitz who was arrested in Israel recently on charges of espionage.

That was true. That was not all fabricated.

I did not deny that he had been arrested.

Let us start with a very brief resumé of the facts. On the morning of 10 February our ambassador telephoned me just after seven to say that Bopradio, that is Bophuthatswana’s official radio service, had broadcast that a gentleman by the name of Malebana-Metsing had seized power in Bophuthatswana.

I immediately ’phoned the hon the State President who called the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Law and Order. We met at my office where we waited for more information and subsequently had a meeting with the hon the State President.

At nine o’clock the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bophuthatswana telephoned me to say that a number of Ministers had fled to the South African embassy and unanimously decided to approach the South African Government for assistance. There is an agreement in existence between the two governments which made it obligatory for us to act when assistance of that nature was requested. As a matter of fact, the South African Government would have been guilty of not carrying out an international obligation if we had not acted the way we did. All of this was made quite clear by the hon the State President in his statements to Parliament.

After the hon the State President had taken Parliament into his confidence, the hon member for Berea got up, ridiculed our action and showed anger at the fact that we had succeeded. If ever there was an example of the PFP being soft on security actions, of the PFP being soft on the perpetrators of coup d’etats and violence, it was the hon member’s speech of yesterday.

Hon members on this side will know how to handle this matter in the coming municipal elections. Hon members need only get a copy of his speech—they need not supplement it with any comment—and circulate the hon member’s speech among the public of South Africa.

*He took it amiss of us for not knowing about Kalmanovitz. We had a certain degree of suspicion concerning the financial activities of Mr Kalmanovitz, but you must remember that Bophuthatswana is independent. I shall now come to the measures which we adopted with all the TBVC states to help them to do better budgetary—economic—planning.

Now let us just for one moment take a clinical look at the phenomenon of espionage all over the world. The hon member must surely know about the Pollard case. Oh, I could mention a hundred, but let me mention a few important ones to the hon members.

What about the Gerhardt case?

That, too. The Pollard case, of 1985 in the USA, was a case of a person employed by the United States naval intelligence service. He was the first American who was caught for spying for Israel. The USA is more powerful than South Africa and has electronic and other technological equipment which is probably very much further advanced than anything we can afford. But they were unable to catch this man until a very late stage! There was also the Pelton case. For 14 years he was a technician in the National Security Agency of the USA, and was engaged in espionage activities for six years before he was caught.

†Look at the Walker case:

One can almost say he created a public company undertaking espionage activities.

*There are the many cases of espionage in Germany. In 1986 45 people were arrested for espionage activities for Eastern Bloc countries. The figure for 1985 alone was 15.

Is it necessary for me to remind hon members of the espionage activities in the United Kingdom by Kim Philby and Guy Burgess, and recently those of Sir Anthony Blunt, who was only unmasked after he had retired. For almost his entire life he was a spy in Britain.

However, this hon member expects Bophuthatswana which in this sphere, I say this with all due respect, is not all that sophisticated, to have known in time of these espionage activities affecting them. I cannot understand the hon member’s argument. The person concerned was a representative of Bophuthatswana in Israel. I maintain today that the possibility is not excluded that the Israeli security service, which is one of the best in the world, did not know about that man for a considerable time either. One of the basic characteristics of a spy is that he is trained not to be caught. Otherwise we would have known about all of them. What astonishes me, however …

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Minister be prepared to take a question?

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I do not see my way clear to replying to a question because my time is limited.

Order! The hon the Minister is not prepared to reply to a question. The hon the Minister may proceed.

These accusations are now coming from a party whose officials arrange meetings which the leader of the party first hears about in the newspaper. [Interjections.] Unless I have to accept that they are also receiving espionage training, this is surely a party which is supposed to be open and democratic. In an openly democratic party—which the PFP maintains it is—the leader does not even know about meetings that have been arranged behind his back. However, he expects Bophuthatswana to catch highly trained spies as one would catch sheep in a pen.

What about his financial activities?

What an absurd argument to raise in this House. Of course Kalmanowitz acted in an improper fashion in the financial field in South Africa. Steps have been taken to prevent this in future.

The hon member alleged that I supposedly made the grotesque statement that these events had made Bophuthatswana famous.

It is true. That is what you said.

A proposition was put to me by a presenter of the SABC to the effect that the opinion had been expressed that South Africa’s saving of President Mangope would not facilitate foreign recognition of Bophuthatswana. He then asked me how I would react to that. I answered:

Surely there is no one in this House who would disagree with that, except for that hon member.

[Inaudible.]

I went on to say:

Whether that hon member likes it or not, this is how life is.

I am amazed that you repeat it!

*That is the answer. There is, in all honesty, no other logical answer to the proposition put to me. Bophuthatswana can reverse these events, which initially appear to be negative, on a wave of newsworthiness to convey a positive message. That is precisely what happened. Certain South African embassies, and I, received interested enquiries from prominent people in Europe and elsewhere. People wanted to know what had happened. Their minds were set at ease. They referred to their friend President Mangope, because he had visited many of those countries. He had visited government members, and they in turn had visited him. They had visited him, and they had respect for him. They were delighted to hear that the coup had been thwarted and reversed. They expressed their satisfaction and all of them without exception said: This is a developing country with a stable government.

Now I want to ask the hon member this question:

When last was he in Mmabatho? [Interjections.] I am not trying to be funny, but I want to know when last the hon member was in Bisho?

More recently than you think!

When last was the hon member in Mmabatho? [Interjections.] I am asking him a fair question. Prominent overseas visitors and foreigners come to Mmabatho and leave with a favourable, positive impression. They say that a new, modern city is developing. There is neat, attractive housing. There is harmony between Whites and Blacks.

That is what partition would have done.

There is a pleasant atmosphere. There is development. They were impressed by the education systems. They were impressed by the medical services. They were impressed by agricultural development. They were impressed by Bophuthatswana as a state, and by its government.

That hon member is denigrating that government and that state. That is what he is doing. [Interjections.] I am not finished yet.

Since the independence of the African states, there have been 17 coups in Africa. Nigeria, the country which the hon member has so much respect for, has already had five coups. I now want to ask that hon member: Do those five coups in Nigeria mean that Britain failed? Should Britain be accused? Whose fault is it? [Interjections.]

Hon members of his party have presented Nigeria to us as the model we should follow. The policy of his party is, in certain respects, based on Nigeria’s constitution.

The hon member must tell me today what it means if Nigeria has already had five coups? What is important is that Nigeria and its initially legally elected government, at that stage when the first government was removed in an illegal way, did not have a friend in Britain that could restore that legal government to power. This is very important.

Sir, how much time do I have left? [Interjections.]

Too much! [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us consider for just a moment the positive side of the four TBVC states. During the past five years 383 new industries have been established in these four states. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to have a turn to speak after this. If hon members expect to be listened to in silence, they must please afford other hon members an opportunity to be heard in silence.

Almost 55 000 job opportunities have been created in terms of the industrial decentralisation programme which the South African Government launched in conjunction with these four governments. In terms of this programme investments to the value of approximately R827 billion have been made in these countries. It makes no difference whether one agrees specifically with the Government’s policy for the attainment of independence, or rather the granting of independence to these states. After all, they are part of the Southern African context and geography. Industrial development and decentralisation would have had to come in any event. However, the Progs say nothing about this. It is almost as though they do not want to say anything. It is as though every success attained is disparaged. In the same way the Progs commented disparagingly when the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the Minister of Law and Order and I went to the north, to Mmabatho.

†I want to say here that that was an act of statesmanship and compassion.

*Here a White President went to a Black President and reached out his hand to him as friend and neighbour. Besides the element of humanitarianism, we calculatedly demonstrated to the world that we stand together in the hour of need. We are not only good weather friends—we are also bad weather friends. We are proud of that. Where was the humanitarianism in the case of that party that constantly has such a lot to say about that virtue? May I ask the hon member whether they sent President Mangope a telegram? Did they display humanitarianism, or were they so angry that nothing had happened to that man that they refrained from making that gesture of decency and philanthropy?

Gen Holomisa saw the hon the State President this morning, after he had held talks with Minister Viljoen and myself. Here is another young state that wants to make progress. Mistakes have been made and a commission of enquiry into corruption is taking its course. Where do hon members ever hear of such commissions instituting enquiries in any other part of Africa? Gen Holomisa told us that he was eliminating the degree of corruption that exists there.

The Licences Control Act, which was passed under the previous Government, would have made it compulsory for companies in the Transkei to transfer a majority of their shares to Transkeian citizens. In our opinion it was a mistake, because it would drive out investment. Gen Holomisa conveyed the good news to me that they are reconsidering this legislation. He impressed the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and myself with well-considered arguments, and said he realised the seriousness of and need for effective administration. Together with Dr Simon Brand, of the Development Bank of Southern Africa, we established financial adjustment committees. In terms of the new system this bank and these committees help all four of these states with their budgetary problems and a financial and economic adjustment programme in order to broaden their income bases. Consequently it will no longer be possible, as sometimes happened in the past, for large sums of money to be inefficiently spent, because these joint committees will find out what is happening.

When one of the states recently wanted to buy expensive aircraft, a telephone call was made to them.

†They were asked in a friendly manner whether it was true. They said it was not true. Even if it had been true it would have been possible to inform that country that in terms of the agreement reached with us we were going to exclude that amount from the budgetary assistance we were obliged to render. They would then have to find that amount themselves.

*Finally I want to say that Bophuthatswana generates 72% of its budget itself.

†This failure or farce generates 72% of its budgetary income itself.

Where does the rest come from?

The rest comes from South Africa. They have a say over that 72%, but we help them in a non-paternalistic way to allocate the total amount in a planned way. There are sensitive factors at stake which we must take into consideration.

What grieved me most, however, was that in the speech of that hon member a kind of refined, sophisticated racism emerged. He said they did not want to enter into a partnership with such people, and that such people were beneath their dignity. He referred in a humiliating and contemptuous tone to Black leaders of the calibre of Pres Mangope, and we shall not leave it at that.

All of us in this House know that this country is confronted by major economic, social and constitutional problems. All of us want inflation to be combated, and not one of us want to pay higher taxes. All of us desire stability, peace and progress. I think all the parties in this House do in fact want to see civilised standards and values assured in South Africa. We differ vehemently on the routes and methods that ought to be followed in order to attain those objectives. I want to put one question to everyone—including myself. At some stage or another we shall have to reach an agreement with the Black leaders and Black community leaders of our country, and they with us. They need not conclude agreements with the Americans, the British, the UN or the rest of Africa, but with us, and we with them.

If we carry on among ourselves as we have been doing in this House the past few days, I want to know what hope we have of ever reaching an agreement with people of whom it may be expected that they will differ with us more. That is the first observation I want to make. Cannot we conduct a debate on the differences between our parties as to the methods that have to be adopted with one another on another level? This is my plea in all earnestness, because this country has the potential to be a great country. This country has the people, the skills, the technology—all we need do is break through this boycott and sanction movement which is encircling us all …

All the country needs is the Government!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is really making too many and unnecessary interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

A great task awaits us. Must we wait until confrontation and unbridled conflict have not only made this country ungovernable, but have also made it unattractive for any government to want to govern, or are the leaders, White and Black, Brown and Asian, really unable to get together once and for all on a basis of give and take and a scaling-down of demands and reach an agreement based on the truth and the realities of our circumstances? The reality is that there is a diversity of communities in this country, regardless of what the Progs say. There is a diversity of communities, including coloured communities, that have their own languages and their own cultural patterns, that want their children to attend their own schools. We must remove the racist barbs from our country and complement one another in order to make joint decisions on matters of common interest without ousting, challenging and provoking one another. These are the challenges that lie ahead for us.

The publicity concerning this country and its communities is for the most part unsavoury publicity aimed at all of us. The Black leaders must not think that it is not ultimately aimed at them as well. Pres Chissano recently asked Dr Franz Josef Strauss to tell Pres P W Botha that he must employ more of his people. This is a reality. Now I make a friendly request as Minister of Foreign Affairs, as to whether we cannot conduct the debate among ourselves in such a way that our people out there can be filled with more hope and see that we are all earnestly seeking a solution to our problems? They must be able to see that we earnestly accept the challenges, and are able to convert them into opportunities, and the opportunities into a victory for the whole of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, at the end of this debate on the no-confidence motion I welcome the opportunity to reply to a number of the arguments raised here. Linking up with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, let us say at once that no one has any fault to find with an appeal to the whole of South Africa to give the greatest possible co-operation. No one objects to the wonderful emphasis he placed on the results of partition in the case of Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.] Our argument is simply that one should extend that further. If one has achieved success with a specific recipe, one should not turn it upside-down and try to adopt another policy internally. I think the hon the Minister must grant me this point: That is specifically the problem, because to a large extent the Government has succeeded with the policy of partition, and those peoples had all the benefits of the blessings of partition, but for the White community of South Africa—in speaking about the White community, I am speaking of the Afrikaner people which forms the heart of the White community and which one cannot exclude in speaking of a people in legal terms—and the Whites associated with us, there is no own dispensation of this kind. Instead of drowning in water 20 feet deep, we shall drown in water five feet deep.

The debate followed a certain pattern. Initially one gained the impression that the speakers on the other side of the House wished to intimate that the pattern of debating should be such that all the speeches should virtually concentrate on standpoints or elements in the hon the State President’s opening address. It is a reasonable request that there should be a reaction to the hon the State President’s speech, but I do want to point out that if the premise was that attention should have been given only to his speech—hon members fortunately did not adhere to that—that would have been a limitation on the expression of opinions by the Opposition parties. I think it would have been an encroachment upon the democratic process, and in such a case totalitarianism would really be lurking just around the comer.

I now want to say something about privatisation. I did not speak about that, and I want to acknowledge frankly that it is not my field. Having listened to the experts on the other side of the House and elsewhere I am convinced that everyone realises that it is not so simple a matter that one can simply dismiss it with a few remarks. I am now reminded of the late Mr Vorster who, after the then Leader of the Official Opposition had spoken about economic matters, said that it was not a good thing for two people to speak about the same matter on the same day when neither of them knew anything about it!

I do nevertheless want to make a few remarks about privatisation. I think that everyone will agree that the authorities cannot, should not and must not do everything for everyone. I think that is a statement that everyone would agree with. Secondly let me say that there are a variety of organisations, free associations, companies, corporations and interest groups which do not owe their existence, interests and rights to the authorities. Do they not necessarily trace their existence and origins to any action taken by the authorities. Thirdly I want to say that if private initiative or free enterprise were to be rejected or undermined, in principle, by a government—which is not the case here—that would be unacceptable totalitarianism. Fourthly I want to say that there are services and functions that can only be performed by the State in the interests of everyone, either to prevent exploitation and shameful monopolies, or to furnish a service that no private body can furnish, not even at a loss.

I want to refer to a few very important questions. Who, for example, would specifically guarantee the salaries and pensions of thousands of public servants if a portion of that sector were to be privatised? I think that is a practical question to which an answer should be obtained. Secondly let me ask who would prevent the majority of the shares of ordinary employees who obtain shares in such an industry from very quickly falling into the hands of big business?

The object of combating inflation with every means at one’s disposal is praiseworthy. No one finds fault with the fact that the hon the State President has announced certain steps to counter or combat inflation. I do, however, think it is vital for public servants not to be placed and kept in the unfair position of lagging behind other sectors of society.

I should like to say a few words about the coup in Bophuthatswana which was nipped in the bud. One finds a few things regrettable. One thing that one finds regrettable is that it was, in fact, possible to catch a government off-guard and topple it. I think hon members would agree with me that that coup took place with disturbing ease.

In so far as the NP still has an ethnic policy which must result in various peoples gaining independence, it is a pity that critics of our ethnic policy— that policy is one of independence for peoples in their own territory—have been induced to place the policy under suspicion. The PFP has seized the opportunity. I also want to state that it is a pity that international recognition for Bophuthatswana as an independent state has, to my way of thinking, received a setback and that it is perhaps quite a few steps further from possible recognition than was previously the case.

Despite all that, and taking everything into consideration, I am speaking on behalf of this side of the House when I say that the CP supports the Government in the prompt action it took in the interests of Bophuthatswana and its Government.

For a few moments I want to refer to the standpoints of the hon the Leader of the PFP. There is no getting away from it, he detests apartheid. On four or five occasions he has compared me to Dr Verwoerd—not that that is an unflattering association. I gladly associate myself with the Verwoerdian philosophy and Dr Verwoerd’s constitutional and ethnic views. If one is allergic to the word apartheid, however, it is another matter. The word reminds me of Pavlov’s experiment with the dog. On just hearing the sound, one immediately has to evince a very strong negative reaction. Let me say, however, that for a long time now the idea of apartheid or separateness—in Afrikaans “afsonderlikheid”—has no longer necessarily given rise to a negative association.

I want to quote to hon members what Ivor Benson said about “apartheid worldwide”. I think these few sentences are worthy of consideration;

He continues:

I think that is a word worthy of consideration. If the NP did not want to run from apartheid, if it did not advertise the document obtained from the Embassy in London as if they had become the enemy of apartheid, we could help to bring home to the world more successfully what the NP says it still adheres to, ie the separate existence of peoples, self-determination, etc.

I see the hon the Leader of the PFP is not here, but in lighter vein I want to present to him the words of one of N P van Wyk Louw’s characters. I am quoting selectively. I do not think the hon the Minister of Finance has ever listened to a sermon in which selective reference has not been made to a text.

If …

The hon the Minister says “If". He is one who has also borne witness in church. I should like to know what text he used at the time. Perhaps he used his own text!

In the context.

The one in context.

I quote what this character has to say:

The character goes on to tell the clergyman:

That is merely a portrayal of what we have believed throughout the years: Good relations, a willingness to help across boundaries, recognition of one another’s human dignity, etc. When it comes to the push, however, then there is a diversity and we do not want to be forced upon one another in the same residential areas, political structures or whatever.

The hon the Leader of the PFP really believes in one large, clumsy, non-racial community for South Africa. According to Hansard of 1960— that is fairly long ago, but I think he still holds the same view—he said that they believed that everything possible should be done to decrease group loyalty, group feeling and group prejudices. I think the hon member still feels that way. I do, however, want to give him a few things to think about. Firstly, he may find some liberal or disconsolate Afrikaners in whom he may feel some affinity for this non-racial community, but I venture to say to him that he has no hope of converting the Afrikaner people to such self-abnegation or self-destruction. Nor do I think he would try, because he cannot speak the language of the Afrikaner people and I do not expect him to do so.

I expect him to have respect for the fact that there is an Afrikaner people which lays claim to its own ethnic identity and own endeavour not to be dominated by other peoples.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I just want him to understand that. If he does not, he will move further and further into the political wilderness in South Africa.

Just do not pretend that you have the sole right to Afrikanerhood.

I would be glad if the hon member for Innesdal would just give me a chance. I want to tell that other hon member, and I am just saying this, too, to the hon member for Innesdal…

You people are sectarian about Afrikanerhood!

Do not shout at me like that. Let me tell the hon liberal member for Innesdal that neither he nor the hon the Leader of the PFP has the faintest hope, when it comes to Black leaders…

You people are politically sectarian!

Order! The hon member for Innesdal must make fewer interjections. The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. They do not have the faintest hope of getting the racial or ethnic awareness of Black peoples to disappear. Hon members must realise that we have had a long history in South Africa of efforts being made to gain non-White support to enable one White group to overcome another. We have a great deal of experience of that. The hon members of the PFP are still trying in vain to do that, and the result is that they are moving further and further into the political wilderness.

The Black people have indicated that they have no interest in supporting a minority of Whites, not even as an interim measure. They are not prepared to do so. They want to seize power in their own way. Between radical and so-called moderate Black leaders in South Africa there is little difference when it comes to the ultimate goal, ie a Black-dominated South Africa.

I should like to comment on a few remarks and comments made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I think the hon the Minister will forgive me for saying that he has an aptitude for making a speech about what another hon member has not said. [Interjections.] He is always saying: “What the hon member did not say is very interesting.” It puts one in mind of the clergyman who conducted a sermon on the Burning Bush, saying that the fire was not to the left or the right of the bush, not behind or in front of the bush and not below or above the bush. A brilliant sermon! That is where the fire was not.

Have you ever had to listen to such a sermon?

Yes, I have had to listen to such sermons, and I also have to listen to such speeches! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has called me a crown prince of no confidence in the Afrikaner’s ability to maintain his position. It sounds very good to speak of this ability of the Afrikaner to maintain his position, but one wonders whether those people do not remember how a certain Old Testament figure thought he could do just what he pleased and no one would get the better of him. I am now referring to the giant Samson, who thought that no one could get the better of him; that he was a match for anyone. In death he joined those very people whom he did not fear and who nevertheless overwhelmed him.

I thought it was a woman! [Interjections.]

There are a few utterances in our politics … I see no Samson on the other side; I merely see someone who has lost.

That is right!

I think that in one of its first reports the Presidents’ Council adopted a standpoint and furnished a quote, the gist of which was the following. I shall give it in my own words. If one takes away the political power from a people, in the long run that people loses everything, because that “everything”—all the interests, rights and freedoms, its movement, its official language, its national anthem and its flag—it cannot retain if it does not have the power to make relevant decisions. Let me ask those who bank on the Afrikaner’s ability to maintain his position the following question: How is he going to maintain his position if in advance, or now, as the NP is doing, the political power is taken piecemeal out of his hands. Surely that is what the NP is doing.

I want to refer the House to a statement Dr Verwoerd made on more than one occasion in this House. The reason why I am doing so is because in that statement he warns against a multiracial dispensation which we are entering upon, and while we still think we are going to emerge as victors on the other side, the unavoidable will happen. Dr Verwoerd warned that every endeavour towards multiracialism, particularly in the administration of the country, must inevitably lead to uninterrupted “civil war”—at the very least a cold war—for each group’s own survival and power. This is a well-known statement. I think it is a relevant statement when what is involved is the survival of a people, the ability of the Afrikaner to maintain his position. We must know that when we want to maintain our position in a multiracial social and political dispensation we are competing numerically, and in the long run those numbers will be decisive.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister— I think he knows this—what happened to the Afrikaners who, as individuals, or even as small groups, settled in Argentina? It was an Afrikaans community, Sir. There were even Treurnichts in Argentina. I received a letter from one of them there. It is nevertheless a vanishing Afrikaans community. What happened to the Afrikaners in Kenya? What happened to the Thirstland Trekkers in Angola, or to the Afrikaners in Zambia or in Zimbabwe? Some of them come from Zimbabwe to synod meetings and tell us how well they are doing there. One can, in fact, speak about individuals who still survive; who still remain White. As a people and as a community, however, they no longer exist. Of that there is no longer any question whatsoever.

We can also speak of the Whites in South West Africa. Would those Whites be able to maintain their position in a multiracial state under a multiracial government taken over by Swapo? No less a person than the hon the State President himself warned against the possibility of the Russians or Swapo being in Windhoek today, and tomorrow, or the day after, on the banks of the Orange River. And then, Sir? Already mention is being made of the fact that if the Defence Force were to withdraw from South West Africa—that body, therefore, which could still guarantee and protect rights—the Whites would follow the Defence Force across the Orange River into the Republic of South Africa.

The hon the Minister said I believed in a Black majority model. We do not, of course, believe in a Black majority model. In no way whatsoever. When, however, one does not believe in, or want to have, a majority of the population being able to take over another majority, even in the ranks of the Whites, one must say one believes in an élitist government. Let me say that the signs are that this Government is embarking on a course adopted by an elitist government. The body it wants to establish is not representative of the peoples of South Africa. It is therefore an élitist government. Let me say that élitist government means that in some or other way one would have to accept totalitarianism into the bargain.

The hon the Minister went on to mention the lack of confidence I supposedly had in cultural organisations, etc. Let me tell him frankly that one of the cultural organisations in which I no longer have any confidence is the Afrikaner Broederbond. [Interjections.] Let me add immediately that I do not simply condemn the AB blindly. I was a member of that organisation. I had the honour of occupying a specific position in it. A few years ago, however, that organisation published a working paper which dealt with the new constitutional dispensation. Giving chapter and verse it indicated, from past resolutions, how the new dispensation would supposedly fit in with the principles of that movement. I sat down and analysed that document. I pinpointed 14 quotations to indicate to them that their conclusion was wrong in the light of the statements which that movement had made over the years. I held discussions with the AB, but that movement simply went ahead, until it reached a point at which its leadership now intimates that one can actually expect to have a majority of Blacks in the Government of South Africa; that the members of that organisation should actually prepare themselves for that eventuality. After all, we know about the discussions that have been held.

If there has, in fact, been one monotonous note that has been sounded in this debate, in my view it has been the efforts to tag the CP with the label that the AWB is a terrorist organisation. In that the NP has lamentably failed, Sir. [Interjections.] They have lamentably failed. Instead of that, we can tell hon members of the NP that quite a few of us on this side of the House know how decisions fluctuated between the NP and the Broederbond. [Interjections.] Never mind, we know! We know of the conferences that were held and of how regional councils convened meetings at which political models were discussed by the Afrikaner Broederbond over and over again, meetings at which Cabinet Ministers and others were the speakers. Thus there was an interchange of ideas. [Interjections.]

I shall not mention anyone by name, but hon members do know that it is true. If you are looking for company or perhaps association— guilt by association—just know in what situation you find yourself.

I am not even mentioning the FAK. At the FAK congress the hon the leaders of the National Party roped in National Party organisers to organise people, on National Party lines, to attend the FAK congress so as to outvote the conservatives there. When the Volkswag was established and requested affiliation with the FAK, it was refused. I wonder where the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is now? He asks us to stand together, to speak with one voice and to think with one mind, but in those ranks, at that stage, there was no mercy or friendliness shown towards any conservative-thinking Afrikaner.

Hear, hear!

I should like to speak about the fact that the hon the Minister links the Conservative Party to violence. He is quoted by Dr Koornhof in America as having intimated, in consultations, that the legalising of the ANC could be considered. Now we know that the ANC is a communist-infiltrated organisation which stands for violence. Perhaps the hon the Minister could tell me that this is incorrect. Is it correct? [Interjections.] His department’s report last year gave one to understand that people and organisations that are invited to the conference table actually need not renounce violence in advance. The violence could be a point for discussion on the agenda. Is he not aware of that?

He is shaking his head. He is saying no.

Now the hon the Minister is not aware of that. In any event, if we are being condemned for holding discussions with an organisation which has not yet committed that violence—there has just been a little boisterousness here and there … [Interjections.] Nothing more boisterous than what the National Party has done over the years. If that is what he wants to do, let me ask the hon the Minister what he is up to? What is he doing in telling an organisation like the ANC— which advocates and commits violence, and which is responsible for execrable bloodshed in South Africa—to come and hold discussions without the necessity of having to renounce violence? The hon the Minister wants to make it a point on the agenda for the discussion of that violence and bloodshed. [Interjections.]

I just want to point out that if we speak of acts of violence, we find ourselves in very good company as far as our standpoint is concerned. In the post-reformational period, the Protestant Reformationists had to justify themselves in the face of the question: What does one do with a king who acts in conflict with the wishes and desires of the people? What does one do? It was very clearly stated that it was not the right of the individual citizen to take up arms and simply start shooting at whomever or whatever he wanted to. It was also stated that it was the responsibility of the lesser magistrates, the magistratus inferiores, to take up the standpoint and interests of the people vis-à-vis the king. That was the standpoint. In other words, if the National Party in South Africa deviates from its course, advocating a policy of multiracialism, mixed government and power-sharing, then the expectation of the people, which placed the Government in power, is that those hon members should have resisted the leadership which emanated from the Government to divert and divide the power of the people and … [Interjections.]

Excellent! That is absolutely right!

What was the reaction of hon members to the NP Van Wyk Louw poem? [Interjections.] And again I quote selectively. The NP Van Wyk Louw poem, in which Mediator is reacting to the claim that “Eternal Law” should now take its course and that this small people should be brought down, the Mediator said: “As jy ’n trotse volk verkneg, word opstand teen die reg sy reg.” Was there then an explosion of Afrikaners who said: “O, wêreld! Hierdie man verkondig nou revolusie en opstand”?

He was speaking in terms of a people which has a right, and that right was not to be dominated by others, but to continue to exist as a free people.

Order! Hon members are talking too loudly. I ask them to lower their voices. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.

I have repeatedly said that one does not force people into a constitution; one makes a constitution for a specific people. I have added that it should be possible to amend a constitution, or else it becomes a deadly slave-chain shackling the soul of a people. I also said that constitutions were amended and that this one could also be amended. Fourthly I have said that this Constitution would, in fact, be amended.

How?

If the White population were to place the CP in power with a majority … [Interjections.] Those hon members asked me what we were going to do. I now want to ask those hon members what they would do if the CP obtained the majority in the White House of Assembly and if its standpoint were that we only wanted to be governed by our own people and not by other peoples’ representatives. Would that party then smash our heads in and hammer us into a constitution in terms of which we would be dominated? [Interjections.] Is that party going to furnish its contribution with Slagtersnek rebellions? Why do I say this? I say this because it is absolutely unacceptable to grant another people, group or race a veto when it comes to our own people’s political future. [Interjections.] I should like to motivate that point. That Government established a Parliament in which there are two other Houses which, with a majority decision, can refuse to have a change made to the Constitution. This House, as representative of the White voters of South Africa, is then not empowered to replace the representatives in the other two Houses with other members who would vote in favour of a motion of this House.

Two-thirds of the voters approved it.

Sir, in 1943 Gen Smuts had a majority and in 1948 Dr Malan had the majority.

I want to ask the hon members opposite, who gave Dr Verwoerd an ovation, if they would now explode with indignation if I were to quote to them what he said. He said “hy sal die Blanke se reg om te heers oor sy eie mense en sy eie landsgebied met geweld handhaaf”. I want to know from hon members opposite whether they would use violence against the Afrikaner people if the majority of the Afrikaner people said that they only wanted to be governed by their own people! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister also spoke of me as a knight of opposition, even against the Church. I do not want to drag the Church into this, but just a few relevant aspects. [Interjections.] If one of those hon members—it can be the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning or any exclergyman—wanted to hold a debate with me, I would like to discuss with him, for example, the content and meaning of Kerk en Samelewing. I would very much like to do so. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Minister of National Education questioned me about my relationship to other Churches. Firstly let me point out to him that the Church to which he is referring acknowledges that its decisions are not final. It would be catastrophic if it thought its decisions were final. Secondly, more than ever the Church is concerned with those who are dissatisfied and aggrieved. A well-known theologian of Stellenbosch said Kerk en Samelewing was a poor document. I think so too, because it is riddled with contradictions, ambiguities and generalities. The Church invited those who are aggrieved to submit their objections, and I made use of that opportunity.

As someone who, by vocation, is a believer, I felt myself free to do so. I drew up a commentary, handed it to distinguished theologians and issued a statement. The Press which supports those hon members in South Africa—I am speaking here of Nasionale Pers—tried to ridicule it. I wrote to one of the newspapers saying that they did not know what it was all about and that they should stay out of the debate. If one wants to meet one’s Christian obligations of participating in a discussion and not being governed by an hierarchy from above, rather exercising the full-fledged status of one’s vocation as a believer, that is ridiculed.

I had an interview with members of that general synodical commission. Sir, I must tell you that it was an illuminating interview in the sense that I asked: Brothers, you have decided, in your synod, that the diversity and distribution of peoples in various residential areas throughout the world is attributable to God’s providential dispensation, how can you allow—and state this in public—George Schulz in America to say that the DR Church has now finally delineated apartheid as a sin and as being in conflict with the Bible? How can you do that? No, but they have now just abolished discriminatory apartheid. I said to the theologian: Brother, that is not recorded in your resolution. And what did he tell me? He said: But that is its virtuosity. [Interjections.] … The virtuosity of the resolution lies in the fact that one can interpret it in different ways. One can understand apartheid as still being a good thing; it must simply not be discriminatory, and for George Schulz it is a sin in the Biblical context. I then laughingly told him: Brother, that is not virtuosity, that is dishonesty.

As far as resistance, and resistance within the church itself, is concerned, I find myself in very good company, in the company of no lesser persons than John Calvin and Martin Luther. If it had not been for that resistance, that hon Minister would not have been a member of the Reformed Church and that hon Minister of Constitutional Development and would not have been a member of the Protestant DR Church. That is the frivolousness one is dealing with.

The hon the Minister of National Education accused us of telling untruths, over and above the fact that he asked me whether I thought the Government was soft on communism. I want to reply to him on that score. These are not my words or my statement, but my contention is that the freeing of Mbeki was a dangerous risk—I have previously said that it was a calculated risk. The freeing of Mbeki was not, as the hon the Minister of Justice wished to imply, an embarrassment to the ANC; on the contrary, there was shouting and rejoicing on the part of the ANC. Why? Because with the freeing of Mbeki the ANC’s cause was given new hope and new impetus. I do not want to elaborate on that any further, but when one is at war with the ANC— we are at war with the communists—one does not let the enemy loose behind one’s own lines.

In connection with this matter the hon the State President made a statement about Marxism, etc, saying:

That was on 10 April 1980 at Stellenbosch. An then, in what respect is Mbeki more of a moderate than Mandela? They are cut from the same cloth, having the same goals, and I want to ask the hon the Minister—I do not know who is dealing with the legislation relating to the emergency regulations—whether I am wrong in saying that apart from the fact that the Bureau for Information, as it were, rolled out the carpet for him and gave him an opportunity to hold a Press conference, when he opened his mouth he contravened the emergency regulations by stating with bravado that he was a member of the Communist Party and the ANC. Am I correct? That is a contravention of the emergency regulations.

The hon the Minister of National Education accuses us of untruths, and I want to tell him that the following is specifically our contention.

[Inaudible.]

Our contention is that the NP envisages the sharing of political power by all South Africans over the entire territory of the RSA. Surely that is true. We are saying that the NP accepts that political power will be shared on the basis of complete equality and in accordance with universal franchise, according to what the hon the State President said to the Eminent Persons’ Group. We are saying that the NP is seeking a mechanism whereby neither Whites nor non-Whites will be placed in a dominating or dominated position. That is so.

You normally add that. Thank you very much for saying it again today.

I am merely doing so for the sake of comprehensiveness.

But is it true or not?

Possibly it could prove to be illuminating to the hon the Minister. Our contention is that the NP has not yet found that mechanism and is still seeking it by way of negotiation. I think those were more or less his own words.

We are saying that the NP first wants to try to determine the specific nature of the mechanism in the process of negotiation. In the process of negotiation, Sir, only then.

We are also saying that the NP wants to employ the National Statutory Council and the Law Commission in an effort to find such a mechanism. As yet they do not have it. That is why they now need outside help. The NP’s National Council must now make provision for representatives of the present mixed RSA Government, Black self-governing states, other Black communities and interest groups. That is also our contention.

According to the NP the Black representatives in the National Council will be elected in accordance with universal franchise, and not on an ethnic basis.

Our contention is that the National Council can be a forerunner to a so-called State Council consisting of leaders and other representatives of all groups and communities. It could even be an embryo of that élitist government which actually fits into the framework of totalitarianism.

We allege that the course being adopted by the NP means that Black people could become Cabinet Ministers in a mixed Cabinet which would represent the whole of the RSA. A Black man could even become State President. That is our contention. Are we wrong? [Interjections.] Surely that is correct.

Our contention is that if Black people must also endorse legislation, as the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and of Constitutional Planning in the Office of the State President has said, the NP will make them or will have to make them a part of Parliament. One surely cannot say there will not be a fourth Chamber, but that they will, in fact, participate in the legislative and executive authority in the country.

We contend that the NP’s reforms are going to lead to Black majority government. Our contention is that the NP has taken away the vested rights of the Whites. The vested right that we had, in the form of our own sovereign White Parliament, has been taken away from us by the NP. We shall repeat this allegation.

We allege that the Government is no longer strictly implementing the Group Areas Act. We contend that the Government is wasting money …

You are wasting our time!

That hon member will be long gone and this party will still be here. [Interjections.]

If the Government is doing all this and wasting money on a small sale, for example on a trifling song, what is the Government not doing in the larger context? [Interjections.]

I am not going to argue with the hon the Minister any further about the Church, something about which he wished to cross swords with me. In conclusion I just want to say that the hon the Minister conducted a fair portion of his speech at a level at which I do not think he should have conducted it, but I shall meet him at that level. He thought fit to refer to my leadership, and he had quite a bit to say about it. If one discusses someone else’s leadership, this presupposes that one regards one’s own leadership to be particularly good by comparison. I contend that that was a fatal error. He referred to me as the leader of a tiny group. A tiny group? He is speaking of a number of people representative of more than half of the votes the NP has ever obtained throughout its existence. [Interjections.]

Do you have a scoreboard?

We are looking at the “scoreboard”!

This is a growing party. This is specifically because we look at the “scoreboard”! [Interjections.] Does that hon member know what a simple municipal election in Rustenburg looks like? There the score was 442 to 120! [Interjections.] Those hon members speak about a “scoreboard”. We shall talk again on 3 March.

I do not want to become difficult now, but if someone holds up his leadership as an example to someone else, I am compelled to ask how that leader is faring in his own constituency. In his own constituency, in 1981, he had a majority of 4 392. In 1982 his majority was 1 524, and in regard to the right-wing parties his overall majority was a mere 591. [Interjections.]

The lion of Vereeniging! [Interjections.]

What about Waterberg?

As far as Waterberg is concerned, I shall gladly oblige. In 1981 the NP had a majority of 1 461, in 1983 the CP has a majority of 1 894 and in 1987 a majority of 2 375. [Interjections.] Let me ask the hon the Minister of National Education and other hon members under whose leadership these events took place. Under whose leadership did the Transvaal concede 22 seats to the CP? It took place under the hon the Minister’s outstanding leadership! [Interjections.]

Order!

I consistently proclaimed separate development … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has unlimited time. Hon members are really making too many unnecessary remarks from that side. I do not know who precisely is to blame. I am asking them please to stop doing so.

I consistently propagated separate development whilst I was leader of the NP in the Transvaal. It was a great honour for me to be Transvaal leader. I want to know whether the hon the Minister of National Education ever intimated to me that I was giving matters the wrong emphasis or was out of step with the NP. When, at Thabazimbi, he encountered a vote of 135 to 26 in the divisional council, he said I had always fed Waterberg on a starvation diet.

That was when you took over Jaap Marais’ policy! [Interjections.]

Surely the hon the Minister knows that that is a time-worn untruth. Look, for example, at the language policy or other policy aspects.

What about the Coloureds and the Indians?

We have always had that policy. Go and ask … [Interjections.] Our policy was that the Coloureds should have their own areas. That logical trend, on the part of the NP, must be taken to its full consequences if one does not want power-sharing.

The hon the Minister of Finance said they should get their own areas.

The hon the Leader of the Transvaal’s colleague considered discussing the legalisation of the ANC at a round-table conference. What does that look like? Would he, as leader, share in that intention?

In Pretoria, in 1982, the hon the Minister said:

In the same breath, in the same report, he said:

But not elements of Prog power-sharing!

No, the hon the Minister spoke against mixed government. Later, in 1984, he said the following:

The hon the Minister thought we knew about that. Earlier, however, he said it was out of the question.

What does Stofberg say about that?

The hon member for George will not put me off my stroke.

In his Bangmaakpraatjies, number two, the hon the Minister says that in the new dispensation there is no power-sharing. He says there is no power-sharing! Now it is there.

Even earlier he said that on numerous occasions we had spoken of White South Africa. Now tell the hon the Minister and the NP is saying that there is no such thing as a White South Africa; that there never was any such thing.

Earlier on the NP said that the Whites would be the losers in their own area once they signed away their sovereignty. And now? Now the NP has signed it away.

What does the NP’s leadership look like? The hon the Minister said that I could not hold my own against other strong leaders. Which strong leaders is he referring to? Was advocate Vorster, according to the hon the Minister, not a strong leader? The hon the Minister was, after all, with advocate Vorster until shortly before our break with the NP. [Interjections.] Mr Vorster told me personally that he had advised the hon the Minister to get off the fence because the hon the Minister’s trousers were wearing thin!

But he did not want to appoint you to the Cabinet?

He appointed me as Deputy Minister, and does the hon the Minister know that as a supporter of the CP he ended up under my leadership? [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he was in the caucus when, in the seventies, I stood up and adopted a standpoint in opposition to certain aspects of the sports policy? I stood up there, and when I walked out it felt as if one had committed political suicide. Is that weakness?

Was the hon the Minister in the Cabinet when the Craven week debacle took place? Was the hon the Minister there? If the hon the Minister had been in the Cabinet, he would have known that I had the courage to take a stand. In the Cabinet I had the courage to take a stand. And then? I was not on the losing end.

Who saved you that day?

Saved? Let me say …

Who saved you that day when you sat there crying?

Sat there crying?

What is the hon the Minister talking about? [Interjections.] On that occasion the Prime Minister introduced the matter, and when he threw it open for discussion, I adopted my standpoint and repeated what I had told him the previous afternoon in the hon the Minister’s presence: “As ek moet loop dan loop ek. Ek sal liewer my voete in die seewater van Natal steek as wat ek daardie voorstel van u sal aanvaar.” [Interjections.]

Hendrik Schoeman and I saved you that day. [Interjections.]

You cannot even save yourself! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister was initially in favour of a linking policy. He said:

Now, however, it is unacceptable.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your patience. I think I have been speaking for more or less three quarters of an hour. I did, however, just want to tell the hon the Minister that if he wants to debate at this level, I can do so too.

You can do it better than he can.

So much for today’s battle, but on the next available occasion we shall again speak about partition and the disastrous consequences of that party’s political policy.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should just like you to take note of the fact that during the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech the hon member for Innesdal made eight interjections! [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

NOES—127: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, GJ; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, DPA; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

AYES—34: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gerber, A; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question negatived, words omitted and amendment moved by Mr C W Eglin dropped.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Minister of National Education put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—126: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M Ade M; Malherbe, GJ; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—35: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That the House has full confidence in the Government and expresses its support for the steps taken and proposed to be taken by the Government to ensure economic progress, national security and good order.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.